By: Juan BattalemeProfessor at the School of Politics, Government and International Relations of the Universidad Austral.
It is about establishing relationships with the world in a selfish way, articulating based on the common logic that prevails in all nations at this stage of international politics: Argentina first.
Foreign policy theory and practice rarely coincide. The models proposed for its implementation vary depending on a country's geographic location, its relative influence in global affairs, existing vulnerabilities, and available resources. However, these models are useful insofar as they guide action; their selection depends on the alignment of ideas among those who wish to implement them.
The debate about the most appropriate foreign policy for Argentina in the coming years revolves around four main ideas: equidistance, acquiescence, resistance, and selective engagement. The latter model has two advantages over the others: it is a proactive model that focuses on anticipation; it acknowledges the limitations imposed by Sino-American competition; and it operates based on thematic areas and interconnected issues, linking foreign policy with defense and intelligence in a comprehensive framework that recognizes the interdependence between security and trade.
Selective engagement operates based on available capabilities and the selection of appropriate means to achieve a given objective, avoiding the problems of overreaction or neglect that affect all countries to varying degrees. The indicators are: the establishment of basic goals, selective and early action, the primacy of interstate relations, and considerations regarding the use of force.
Its logic involves doing business with everyone, but in the field of security, the priority is focused on the United States and the West, specifically within the Western Hemisphere. Regarding values, the reference point is close to liberal democracies; however, the objective is to strengthen internal values rather than condemn external actors, regardless of the demands of the hemispheric power. Selective engagement seeks a balance between doing nothing, doing "too much," or doing too little.
Examples. Let's look at two brief examples of selective engagement. The international security environment is degraded by the war between Russia and Ukraine, which is supported by the transatlantic community. This situation has two components: one political and the other economic. Institutional sanctions, as well as sanctions in the arms and cooperation fields on sensitive issues, must be supported by the Argentine administration, given that its relationship with Russia in these areas is tenuous and geographically too distant to effectively influence the region's geopolitical dynamics. It is not necessary to be vocal against Russia; simply supporting multilateral actions is sufficient.
However, economic sanctions and issues affecting trade with Russia must be viewed with a high degree of attention, following the case-by-case rule, and not automatically added to the sanctions imposed in this area, since even though Russia represents 1,25% of the trade of the Argentine Republic, in net terms they are assets of around seven hundred million, necessary even to pay debt owed to Western credit organizations.
China is another good example of how selective engagement operates. Commercially, the Asian giant is the second largest destination for Argentine exports—too much trade to jeopardize over issues that are sensitive for China. The types of regimes are different, but the Argentine leadership has no reason to publicly question or join critical positions regarding China's internal policies. Any contributions the country can make should be made outside the public sphere, taking care not to damage China's prestige, as it could actively act against our direct economic interests. In the field of sensitive technologies, segmenting China's market penetration would be advisable, clearly defining which issues would be excluded from the technological relationship we might develop with that country, and avoiding issues that pose direct challenges to the future security of the West, particularly given the potential for damage that these nations have to our economic structure.
Selective commitment is choosing selfishly, based on the common logic that prevails in all nations at this stage of international politics: Argentina first.
